[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Record layers are not orthogonal.
per at bothner.com
Thu Nov 16 01:30:26 EST 2006
David Van Horn wrote:
> I don't understand the problem with these syntactic layers being
> optional. If they are compelling, implementations will support them.
> If not, why should they be included in the language standard?
I think it is more important to standardize a simple records syntax
than the procedural layer or inspection. Many libraries will
want/need a simple records mechanism, and it would be bad to require
them to use one not in R6RS or to use the procedural layer.
The procedural layer is not an adequate candidate for a records
mechanism: It is too low-level, verbose, is harder to generate good
code for, and makes for code that is harder to reader and maintain.
We do not want to encourage people to be using it; it is facility
for implementors and tool-writers, not for people writing "application
If we're unsure about the syntax, then at the very least standardize
SRFI-9: It is simple, easy to implement, and supported by many/most
current implementations. It's usefulness is attested to by the
fact that it is required by a number of other SRFIs. Alternatively,
extend SRFI-9 to add whatever minimal functionality is missing.
I.e. implementations already have to support it.
per at bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/
More information about the r6rs-discuss